Jack Kevorkian Dead at 83

theodp writes "Jack Kevorkian, the pathologist said to have had a role in more than 130 assisted suicides, has died from kidney-related complications on the eve of the 21st anniversary of his first assisted suicide. Kevorkian, who served more than eight years in prison for second-degree murder, had his story told in the HBO movie You Don't Know Jack. His antics and personality brought a certain approachability to a grim subject — the fundamental right of terminally ill patients to choose to die. 'I will debate so-called ethicists,' he once said. 'They are not even ethicists. They are propagandists. I will argue with them if they will allow themselves to be strapped to a wheelchair for 72 hours so they can't move, and they are catheterized and they are placed on the toilet and fed and bathed. Then they can sit in a chair and debate with me.' RIP, Dr. Jack."

Comments

In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[Qzukk]

Why would he have killed himself, when he didn't have a terminal illness and was actually expected to recover?

Even if he was hospitalized with a terminal illness and in pain, who would have helped him kill himself?

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if he was terminally ill, why should he be expected to end his life? Did he promote euthenasia, or choice of euthenasia?

Captcha: altruism

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[KiloByte]

He wasn't rendered helpless by his illness -- until his last visit to the hospital shortly before his death. And if this bout of illness would be staved off, he'd have a few more years of mostly fully able life. Most of us have some illness a good part of their lives -- be that bad blood pressure, diabetes, allergy or whatever else. He did succumb to his kidney problems, but was more able at the age of 83 than most of you will be.

On the other hand, those who are rendered helpless -- trapped in a body that no longer works -- do suffer for no good reason. When you can't move on your own, have to fed and have your poo cleaned by others, and most importantly, have no hope of it ever getting better -- you're effectively in the most cruel jail.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[OakDragon]

In b4 straw man, I guess...

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[UnderCoverPenguin]

On the other hand, those who are rendered helpless -- trapped in a body that no longer works -- do suffer for no good reason. When you can't move on your own, have to fed and have your poo cleaned by others, and most importantly, have no hope of it ever getting better -- you're effectively in the most cruel jail.

Certainly I do not want to be put in this awful position. However, my concern is that if doctor assisted suicide is legalized, the insurance companies will be significantly less motivated to treat seriously ill patients who choose to live. And eventually, even before they get to this stage.

(We already have "quality of life" decisions being made before treatment options are presented to patients. Those who are perceived to have "too low a quality of life" are only offered palliative treatments.)

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[Rich0]

Personally, I doubt the motivation of health insurance companies would at all be driven by the ability of patients to kill themselves (which to some extent is an option many already have). At some point insurance companies stop paying for heroic measures anyway, and I doubt that the legal availability would impact that.

Now, the consumer demand for insurance that covers more desperate treatments might very well drop if euthanasia becomes more socially acceptable, and that might impact what insurance companies are willing to cover. That is a bit more indirect than what you are suggesting.

Most people don't realize it, but EVERY insurance company puts a price on life - and that includes national healthcare systems as well. If a $100k procedure would extend your life of an 85 year old quadriplegic by one day no insurance system on this planet would pay the bill. If the same procedure was likely to give a 15 year old a normal healthy lifespan (vs death in a few weeks) chances are most insurance systems would pay it (even private insurance in the US). The basic algorithm looks at how a treatment extends your life and/or improves the quality of your life - the more it does both the more it is allowed to cost. In the end everybody puts a price on life - we just don't like to talk about it.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[cold fjord]

Did he promote euthenasia, or choice of euthenasia?

Both, and much more.....

Dr. Kevorkian’s views on euthanasia do not stop at “planned death,” but build to an ultimate conclusion. This is probably best expressed in the articles he has written over the years for the professional journal, Medicine and Law. In 1986 he wrote on human experimentation:

The so-called Nuremberg Code and all its derivatives completely ignore the extraordinary opportunities for terminal experimentation on humans facing imminent and inevitable death. . . . Intense emotionalism engendered by the concentration camp atrocities of World War II has unfairly stigmatized this honorable concept and cloaked it in silence. . . .

. . . Now that the benumbed sense of objective appraisal manifested by the Nuremberg judges has begun to wear off, at last it is conceded that they were wrong in concluding that nothing of value resulted from the illegal experiments. . . . The data are all the more valuable because similar human experiments can never again be done. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that a few of the medical criminals did the right thing (extraction of positive gain from inevitably total loss otherwise beyond their influence) but in the wrong way (without concern over consent or anesthesia) and in the wrong setting (created by the evil “laws” of a diabolical dictator.)[1]

At the end of his article, Kevorkian offers a bioethical “Code of Conduct” for “any professional or lay individual in any way participating in experimentation on human beings facing undeniably imminent and inevitable death.”

C.(1). Experiments may be of any kind or complexity. . . . C.(2). While a prospective subject is fully conscious, an experimenter may start any procedure which on thorough analysis portends no significant distress for the subject. . . . C.(3). Induction and irreversible maintenance of at least stage III general anesthesia is imperative before experimentation is begun on the following prospective subjects: (a) All brain-dead, comatose, mentally incompetent, or otherwise completely uncommunicative individuals. (b) All neonates, infants, and children less than (-) years old (age must be arbitrarily set by consensus). (c) All living intrauterine and aborted or delivered fetuses. C.(4). If the subject’s body is alive at the end of experimentation, final biologic death may be induced by means of: (a) Removal of organs for transplantation. (b) A lethal dose of a new or untested drug. . . . (c) A lethal intravenous bolus of thiopental solution. . . .[2]

Kevorkian’s research into human experimentation began while he was in the residency program at the University of Michigan, and eventually led to his removal from the program.

“While I was in my residency I was researching the idea of condemned men being allowed to submit to anesthesia rather than execution. While under anesthesia we could do experiments from which they wouldn’t recover, and then remove their organs. Now if you needed a liver or a heart, would you like to see a young healthy man or woman fried in the electric chair? No! But that Dark Age school told me I would have to drop the project I was working on or leave. So I left, and spent my last two years of residency at Pontiac.” While an associate pathologist at Pontiac General Hospital Kevorkian ran into more trouble. As part of an experiment he transfused cadaver blood directly into several patients. Kevorkian’s actions shocked the U.S. medical community, but no legal action was taken against him.

“All it involved was taking blood out of dead people who died suddenly and then transfusing it into living people just like regular blood. The Russians had been doing it for over half a century, but instead of transfusing it directly into a person, they would s

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[canadian_right]

Worrying that legal euthanasia may lead to trouble with insurance companies is only a problem in the very few, terribly uncivilized, western countries that do not have universal medical care paid for by taxes. Everywhere else the issues are to make sure the correct controls are in place so that only the truly terminal, that truly desire to die, and are competent to make that decision are euthanasized.

Oregon has a very reasonable law controlling euthanasia in that state, and to the best of my knowledge it has not caused any medical insurance to be denied.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The real problem is that killing old people ... would be a very good investment for insurance companies (and now, for the state). Now insurance companies are bound by the terms of the contracts they signed, the state is not. Insurance companies are bound by the law, and also bound by government to never overstep very limited boundaries. But again, there is no boundary the state cannot cross.

The real question is what will the state do when faced with difficult questions ... cut unemployment benefits below the minimum to support a family, say, or kill old people (which would provide a massive boost to the economy. Fortunately it would be a one-time boost (or it would only be worthwhile every 20-30 years or so at best). For the state the problem is worse than for insurance companies - for the state it is beneficial to kill people the moment they turn unproductive, which tends to be 10-20 years before these people become truly infirm. In the case of chronic unemployment, it can even be 50 years or more before one becomes infirm.

For honorable doctors the question is also moot. The hippocratic oath, taken by every doctor, specifically requires them to swear never to commit euthanasia. Then again, it also specifically forbids abortions. The entirety of medical science was developed, over thousands of years, on the condition that medical science would never be used for either purpose. Viewed in that way, it is also betrayal.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

States will definitely make sure young people believe reasonable measures are taken to verify that desire to die. And the incentive of the state is to ignore the desire part as much as possible.

So a thorny question is : how will this evolve over time ? Since the obvious way to "improve" the money and power of the state is to find ways to kill anyone who isn't working in the private sector.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[Anonymous Coward]

A TL/DR summary of the above:

1) He suggests that when a patient is going to die, and nothing can be done to prevent it, then it makes sense to perform medical experiments on that patient, assuming that consent can first be obtained, and that the experimentation can be done without causing any additional hardship to that patient.

2) He suggests that the above could also apply to convicts about to be executed, again with consent and without introducing additional suffering.

3) He suggested that blood could be transfused from someone recently deceased directly into the body of someone in need of a transfusion. The practical application of this procedure would be on the battlefield.

4) He suggests that the idea of experimenting on consenting humans would be preferable to experimenting on non-consenting animals.

All of the above sounds pretty reasonable to me.

The questionable parts are at the end, where he expands on the concept of "planned death" to include some externally imposed deaths, and also suggests a market for human organs. Not much detail is provided for either, so I'll make no comment here.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[durrr]

The unreasonable part is that some moron can block my consent to such experiments. When did we redefine freedom as "what lawmakers decide".

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[The Dawn Of Time]

The unpalatable truth is that killing old people off would be good for everybody, aside of course from the specific old people killed. There would be less expenditure needlessly prolonging useless life, and fewer people who ferociously hold outmoded opinions to the detriment of all.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[hairyfeet]

Well as someone who lost his sister in 07 to a long and horribly drawn out illness, watching as she slowly but surely fell apart with nothing the doctors could do to even stop the pain (she had a rare degenerating nerve disorder) I appreciate the work that Mr Kevorkian did and the price he paid to bring the rights of the suffering to the national spotlight.

Despite our advances in medicine the are plenty of times where all medical interventions are useless and the pain simply can NOT be in any way controlled. While my sister wouldn't have taken the option no matter how much she suffered (she wanted to live long enough to see her oldest start college, she unfortunately died 6 months before he began) the simple fact is as intelligent creatures it should be our right to choose whether we wish to endure the suffering or not.

The way I've always looked at it is this: if you would put an animal down rather than making it endure that kind of hellish suffering, then why in God's name would you make a human being go through that? By the end my sis's lungs were failing, she could no longer speak more than a word or two, couldn't eat or drink because her ability to swallow was failing, her nerves were lit up like pins and needles, and just the act of turning her could easily break bones. Why would anyone force someone to live through that? They should have the choice as intelligent beings to decide if that is how they want to be or not. To have it any other way is simple cruelty.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[cold fjord]

The unreasonable part is that some moron can block my consent to such experiments. When did we redefine freedom as "what lawmakers decide".

I think there is overlap with the ethics of selling human organs:

Organ sales: Compromising ethics

What proponents of the selling of organs for transplant call a 'choice,' I call the right to be cruelly exploited. Democratic societies have always limited our ability to harm ourselves, hence, workplace safety, child labor, or minimum wage laws that forbid a 5-year-old to 'choose' to take a dangerous, low-paying job. (Even when someone faces dire poverty, we do not permit him to sell himself into slavery.) Similarly, the laws barring organ sales are intended to protect those who, out of economic desperation, would be harmed by those with more money.

What's more, it is a highly dubious proposition that selling an organ offers even the very poor meaningful recourse. A few years after taking such a perilous step, the seller is apt to find himself in unchanged economic circumstances, albeit with one fewer kidney and the attendant health risks. There are better ways to respond to the problems of poverty than by expanding the opportunity for the rich to harvest the organs of the poor. And there are better ways to reduce the waiting list for kidney transplants: I particularly admired FL Delmonico's noting what preventive medicine can achieve.

It is true that we need to expand the pool of organs available for transplant, but there are ways to do that without endangering the most vulnerable members of society. One plan would make the use of cadaveric organs routine, switching from the current opt-in system to allowing those folks with, for example, religious objections, to opt out. It is curious that those who resist such an approach show more concern for the sentiments of the dead than the health of the living.

The Hidden Cost of Organ Sale

I assume you see nothing wrong with this, nobody in need of help? Three men charged in 'dungeon' castration

Laws establish limits, its been that way since before recorded history.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[hey!]

The picture emerges is of a person who often had an important point to raise, but was more than a little creepy.

His antics as a resident aren't disturbing because they involve a dead body; they're disturbing because they involved a *live patient*. What is more, he seems utterly incapable of questioning the wisdom and ethics of doing something to a patient just to satisfy his curiosity. In fact he seems a little self-righteous about the whole affair, as if they *only* basis to objecting to the procedure is moral cowardice. As Aristotle would point out, the opposite of cowardice is rashness, not bravery; bravery is the reasonable mid-point between the vicious extremes.

So it wasn't Dr. Kevorkian's suicide machine that was scary, it was the man himself. He married a narrow-minded moral narcissism to a fascination with using human beings as experimental animals. I sometimes wonder whether he built the machine just because he was curious to see it in operation. As a pathologist he didn't deal with patients at all -- just tissues. An oncologist might be driven to build the machine because he saw the suffering of his patients; for Dr. Kevorkian the motivation came from someplace else, at best some place more abstract, at worst ... who knows? It has no bearing on the validity of his views about euthanasia or human experimentation. Those ideas should stand or fall on their own merits.

Nonetheless he was a fascinating and somewhat disturbing character. Maybe it takes a character like that to see the medical ethics emperor has no clothes, but I'm more comfortable with somebody who occasionally sees two sides to a complex issue.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[LordLimecat]

2) He suggests that the above could also apply to convicts about to be executed, again with consent and without introducing additional suffering

This causes me concern-- I think the slippery slope of "how long will consent be mandatory" might apply here.

4) He suggests that the idea of experimenting on consenting humans would be preferable to experimenting on non-consenting animals.

Assuming of course that consent is always kept as the PRIMARY consideration-- not the fact that they are condemned, or terminally ill. I have no doubt there are many would would suggest that if someone is to be executed anyways, why not perform such and such an experiment on the unwilling prisoner.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[rastilin]

The reason people fought against euthensia was the fear that it might be abused. People would pressure other people into it "for the good of the family" or that elderly would feel pressured to do it themselves so they wouldn't burden their relatives. When the BBC Documentary on the subject came out, this was precisely the vibe I got from them. There's no way that this won't be abused to get rid of people who are considered a "burden".

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[tragedy]

But that should be less a reason not to legalize it, and more a reason to stamp on the insurance companies throats if they try to pull that, surely? From a strict resource-usage point of view, suicide by terminally ill patients (or those who will need lifelong full-time care), is a desirable thing since those patients use most of the resources (of course, medical accounting seems to be even wackier than military accounting, so who can ever really know) and so clearly it would be desirable to the insurance companies. The slippery slope where they, or the hospitals, or the law itself, starts to push "suicide" on people is clearly undesirable. It's clearly not something that could "never happen" as there are numerous historical (many well within living memory) examples of it happening and not just to the terminally ill. That's no reason to keep it illegal however, it's just a reason to be extremely vigilant, if it's made legal, at making sure that every last person who does get assisted suicide really considers it to be the best possible choice for them.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[UnderCoverPenguin]

for the state it is beneficial to kill people the moment they turn unproductive, which tends to be 10-20 years before these people become truly infirm. In the case of chronic unemployment, it can even be 50 years or more before one becomes infirm

By what definition of unproductive? Retired people are often able to mentor children and young adults Sadly, our society tends to ignore the great many of these potential mentors. Should they be penalized for simply being ignored? Then add in the increasing occurrence of forced retirement for no reason other than a perception they are too old. (Some of my best coworkers are from 70 to 90+ years and are still very productive.)

Before we consider euthanizing the elderly, we should first stop discarding otherwise productive people - whether they work in a business/school/etc or help their younger family members.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[cold fjord]

Worrying that legal euthanasia may lead to trouble with insurance companies is only a problem in the very few, terribly uncivilized, western countries that do not have universal medical care paid for by taxes.

Yes, we keep hearing reports of how those government run plans turn out.

British healthcare in crisis despite massive investment
Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed
Hospitals must make deep cuts to survive

For $41-billion, Canadians deserve a straight answer

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks. . . .

Nor were the problems I identified unique to Canada—they characterized all government-run health-care systems. Consider the recent British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled—48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months. A while back, I toured a public hospital in Washington, D.C., with Tim Evans, a senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe. The hospital was dark and dingy, but Evans observed that it was cleaner than anything in his native England. In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave—when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity—15,000 elderly citizens died. Across Europe, state-of-the-art drugs aren’t available. And so on. ...

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don’t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation.

Also note that the United States actually has tax payer funded medical care, Medicare, for example. Medicare refuses more treatment than private insurers:

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[durrr]

What if we consider the other end of the spectrum? A licensed MD doing x or y on a whealty and socially well adjusted adult person with full and informed consent and no benefits outside research?
Obviously we only find blackmarket organ trade and charlatans running dungeons today when the legal restrictions choke out all opportunity for decent and formal alternatives. Same goes for drugs, you won't find ecologic and locally produced opium sold at competitive prices and lab verified for strength, smokeable in a comfortable enviroment with properly trained medical personell nearby, because any such establishment would be raided and closed twenty minutes after opening.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[bye]

Yet Canadians are happier about their universal health-care system than US citizens - and Canadian GDP proportional health care costs are half that of the US.

I think you got tricked by British tabloids: they are able to complain about Grandma's Sunday cookies, let alone about a huge health care system that covers and helps tens of millions of people in some of the most dramatic moments in their lives ...

The thing is, in the US there are huge private monopolies that have cornered the market for fun and profits and US citizens still don't have universal health-care - you cannot really do worse than that.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[AmiMoJo]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment the argument is this: The law is there to protect those who cannot protect themselves from the undue influence of others. For example an elderly person pressured to stop being a burden on their family, or someone with mental illness.

In countries where assisted suicide is allowed a doctor has to certify that the person is of sound mind. That is nothing new, we have been doing it in legal matters like the alteration of a will or transfer of responsibility for a long time now. People argue that in cases where someone has a degenerative disease they may ask for help to die but then chance their mind once beyond the point where they can communicate it, but personally I don't think that danger outweighs the suffering inflicted on the majority by now allowing assisted suicide.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[hairyfeet]

That is why one should have reviews NOT force everyone on the planet who is horribly broken to suffer for years, sometimes decades, in agony! I mean everything CAN be abused, look at the politicians that wanted to ban pain patches and oxycotin because kids were stealing them to get high even though they are some of the few drugs that help with bone pain.

I personally have a simple little rule that I think should be applied: Would you make your dog go through that? If whatever it is is nasty enough you would show pity on an animal in that condition and put them down then by God people should be given the same consideration you would show the damned dog!

I think everyone that thinks it is wrong should be forced to spend a week, just a single week, in the company of someone who has an aggressive untreatable illness like my sister. They should get to hear the sound of the bones snapping as one of the nerves in her legs fire and cause a violent jerk that shatters the bones, listen as each breath is a struggle that causes great pain, see the kind of agony these people go through.

Too damned many in this country thinks modern medicine if it can't help will at least be able to deal with the pain, but that is total horseshit. When you get into nerve damage and cancers you can give up doing anything for the pain, all the drugs in the world simply wouldn't be able to stop it. I am only grateful that in the end we had a doc that was decent enough to "snow" her, which is a nice way of saying give her a fatal dose of painkillers, because otherwise she would have slowly suffocated to death. It would have been like someone sitting on her chest and slowly pushing down, a slow and horrifying ending.

Frankly NO family should have to go through that and I seriously doubt there would be very many that would want to snow grandma just because they don't want to deal. in reality they would find as I am finding out with my mom, that in the end there is only so much a family is physically capable of doing for someone who is in pain and whose mind is going, and thanks to local and state laws that say as long as she has the ability to say "no" she can't be put in a home. In the end most likely I'll have to abandon her and hope that when she falls she hurts herself but not fatally so that the police will intervene because I've been told until she is a danger to herself there is nothing anyone can do.

Can you even IMAGINE having to make a decision like that about your own mother? That you have to hope she hurts but doesn't kill herself simply because you can't stay awake 24/7/365 to deal with a woman that is frequently becoming combative and paranoid? To hear the woman that raised you curse the day you were born because you won't let her eat nothing but candy like some sort of junkie? Until you have lived through something like this one simply cannot judge or understand, and I appreciate what old Jack did to bring folks like my mom and sis to light.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[npsimons]

However, my concern is that if doctor assisted suicide is legalized, the insurance companies will be significantly less motivated to treat seriously ill patients who choose to live. And eventually, even before they get to this stage.

This is an argument against for-profit insurance companies, not euthanasia. Though as others have pointed out, even socialized medicine has to take costs into account, but at least "profit" won't have a factor in that case.

Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself

[RockDoctor]

2) He suggests that the above could also apply to convicts about to be executed, again with consent and without introducing additional suffering

This causes me concern-- I think the slippery slope of "how long will consent be mandatory" might apply here.

The possibility of an action being at the top of a slippery slope does not affect the inherent ethical quality of that action. The slippery slope is a detail of the way you go about implementing the ethical choice that you've already made.

I happen to share your suspicions - someone, somewhere would start by being a bit lax on the consent - "There is a possibility that this may hurt" instead of "this sure as fuck is going to hurt - you". And before long you have officers of a state that purports to support freedom and human rights half-drowning sleep-deprived alleged criminals because they (the state officers) think they will recover something from the torture victim other than what the victim thinks will stop the torture.

As K.V. said

[gratuitous_arp]

God bless you, Dr. Kevorkian

Re:As K.V. said

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Fuck you, he was an Atheist, don't disrespect him with your bullshit.

There goes a great man, who fought against the religious bullshit machine in the most difficult place possible to do so. Once more enlightened times reach this earth, he will be remembered as he deserves.

Re:As K.V. said

[m.ducharme]

Amen.

Re:As K.V. said

[gfreeman]

Militant : "Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause"

Seems to fit. You militant, you.

Re:News For Nerds

[jpapon]

Just because you're a nerd doesn't mean you shouldn't care about the goings-on of the world. These days, nerds are involved in the core debates over where our liberties lie, be that in matters of free expression, free beer, free speech, free thought, or the freedom to die.

There is no right more personal

[drinkypoo]

There is no right more personal than to choose the hour of one's death. Fate robs us of it on one end and government attempts to rob us of it on the other. Fate is what it is, but government wants to control when you die because otherwise it messes up the spreadsheets.

Re:There is no right more personal

[SuricouRaven]

Government, and religion. This is slashdot, where we blame religion for everything, but this time that is where the blame belongs. There's a lot of superstitious thought around - people who think human life is something magical and supernatural, which must be sustained by any means until the very last moment.

Re:There is no right more personal

[drinkypoo]

Government is amoral, especially ours. They do use religion as an excuse, of course, and even since the religious reich was mobilized they've been feeling their oats.

Re:There is no right more personal

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its more than spreadsheets the government wont be happy till they get to choose our breakfast (then again maybe that would be for the spreadsheets so they know how much bacon to order and what countries they can easily enforce trade embargoes on).

Re:There is no right more personal

[drinkypoo]

Oh, wait, that's not what you meant at all.

Don't make too many assumptions...

Re:There is no right more personal

[uglyduckling]

Objections to assisted suicide aren't only about the act, they're about the process. In other words, many people (including myself) believe that it is impossible to make assisted suicide available without compromising the protection of those who do not wish to commit suicide, but might be directly or indirectly pressured to do so. This includes internal pressure (e.g. mental illness). I do actually disagree with assisted suicide on principle, but even if I were to accept that ideally people should have a right to choose when they die, I would oppose its legalisation on the basis that the protection of the vulnerable (i.e. those who wouldn't wish to die early but by failure of the process end up doing so) trumps the desire of those who with a clear mind and without coercion do wish to die early. Can I also correct you on one point - there is a world of difference between deliberately causing death, and allowing death by not treating - the right to refuse treatment is enshrined in international and national law, so sustaining life "by any means" cannot (or at least should not) be imposed on anybody.

Re:There is no right more personal

[MRe_nl]

"in the Netherlands where they've dismantled the bulk of their palliative care system" BULLSHIT Alert

"old people are afraid to go to the doctor" BULLSHIT Alert

"carry cards saying "Please don't euthanize me" BULLSHIT Alert

"their socialized medicine" BULLSHIT Alert

Re:There is no right more personal

[FooAtWFU]

YOUR FACE alert.

3. According to Wikipedia (which is never wrong)

"The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private compulsory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from taxation. According to the WHO, the health care system in the Netherlands was 62% government funded and 38% privately funded as of 2004."

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

2. and 1. Google search for "netherlands euthanasia cards" is a fun start. I'd point out more but it's like 6am on a Saturday and I'm only awake because of a car catching on fire and exploding a few hundred feet up the street.

I mean, if you think there are compelling reasons to permit assisted suicide anyway, please, let's have a discussion about that and how you intend to address matters like this, but stop pretending they're not real problems.

Re:There is no right more personal

[FooAtWFU]

Don't make too many assumptions...

Gentlemen, I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Possibly my fault. A few minutes before 5am a car up the street started honking for minutes on end. There was also a fire and some small explosions. I'll go back to sleep soon.

Re:There is no right more personal

[Canazza]

Exactly, there's a difference (Slight but crucial) between Assisted Suicide and a DNR Order. Personally, I think both should be taken on a case-by-case basis, Even a crippled, paralysed, motor neuron disease riddled man can still contribute immensly to the sum of human knowledge. Okay, not everyone who's permenantly paralysed is Stephen Hawking but you are still you and if you can communicate you want an Assisted Suicide you can still make a difference. Even if it's only to your family, or to one single person and make their life better. Once you're gone your memories and experience go with you and they won't help anyone then.

If you're medicated to the eyeballs and your only moments of lucidity are acompanied by unbareable pain then I understand AS in that situation, but the problem with legistlating it and legalising it means that people other than the desperate and rightfully needy might slip through, and someone who shouldn't have been assisted will have been assisted and nothing will bring that person back.

Re:There is no right more personal

[Anonymous Coward]

while his response was a little crude i have to agree with MRe_nl. It is not nearly as bad as you make out to be. The link to google shows only hits taken from a daily telegraph paper which quotes statements of a British researcher of a pressure group opposed to euthanasia and of course the unbiased religious groups ( I know we are the Sodom and Gomorrah). While it is true that around 6,000 people carry anti-euthanasia cards this is a minor group, such as the group which stipulated they do want to be euthanised in certain cases. Elderly people are not afraid to go to the doctor. That is just the sensation-seeking statement of Mr Fitzpatrick of pressure group Not Dead Yet, who isn't cited as having done actual research in any of the articles.

As to palliative care being dismantled, You are right. But that is not because doctors go around killing patients by the hundreds, it is because every aspect of health-care is being dismantled. Something about the retreat of the welfare state, financial crisis, growing market incentives in health-care etc...

Re:There is no right more personal

[cold fjord]

I think you need recalibration.

Inquiry launched as Dutch euthanasia cases surge by 13% in ONE year

Anti-euthanasia groups say, however, that the sharp increase is probably linked to the collapse of the palliative care system in the Netherlands. Euthanasia is usually carried out by administering a strong sedative to put the patient in a coma, followed by a drug to stop breathing and cause death. . . .
Many Dutch people are growing uneasy about the way in which the law has been applied.
Among them is Dr Els Borst, the former health minister and deputy prime minister who guided the law through the Dutch parliament.
Last December said she regretted that euthanasia was effectively destroying palliative care. Amsterdam, a city with a population of 1.2 million people, is now served by two tiny hospices.
The British campaign group Dignity in Dying - formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society - has acknowledged that euthanasia is open to abuse but insists that assisted suicide could still work in practice.

Continent Death - Euthanasia in Europe

Euthanasia has also entered the pediatric wards, where eugenic infanticide has become common even though babies cannot ask to be killed. According to a 1997 study published in the British medical journal The Lancet, approximately 8 percent of all Dutch infant deaths result from lethal injections. The babies deemed killable are often disabled and thus are thought not to have a "livable life." The practice has become so common that 45 percent of neonatologists and 31 percent of pediatricians who responded to Lancet surveys had killed babies.

It gets worse: Repeated studies sponsored by the Dutch government have found that doctors kill approximately 1,000 patients each year who have not asked for euthanasia. This is not only a violation of every guideline, but an act that Dutch law considers murder. Nonvoluntary euthanasia has become so common that it even has a name: "Termination without request or consent."

Despite this carnage, Dutch doctors are very rarely prosecuted for such crimes, and the few that are brought to court are usually exonerated. Moreover, even if a doctor is found guilty, he or she is almost never punished in any meaningful way, nor does the murderer face discipline by the Dutch Medical Society. For example, in 2001, a doctor was convicted of murdering an 84-year-old patient who had not asked to be killed. Prosecutors demanded a nine-month suspended probation (!), yet even this brush — it can’t even be called a slap — on the wrist was rejected by the trial judge who refused to impose any punishment. Not to worry. The appellate court decided to get tough: It imposed a one-week suspended sentence on the doctor for murder.

Even such praising with faint damnation isn’t enough for the Dutch Medical Association. As a result of this and the handful of other non-punished murder convictions of doctors who engaged in termination without request or consent, the organization is lobbying to legalize non-voluntary euthanasia. Along these same lines — and demonstrating that the culture of death recognizes no limits — the day after the Dutch formally legalized euthanasia, the country’s minister of health advocated the provision of suicide pills to the elderly who do not qualify for killing under Dutch law.

Lest we think the Dutch experience is a fluke, let us now turn our attention to Belgium. Only one year ago the Belgians legalized Dutch-style euthanasia under "strict" guidelines. As with the Netherlands, once unfettered, the euthanasia culture quickly began to swallow Belgium whole. Moreover, the slide down the slope has occurred at a greatly accelerated pace. It took decades for the Dutch euthanasia to reach the current mo

Re:There is no right more personal

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Fate is what it is, but government wants to control when you die because otherwise it messes up the spreadsheets.

Government wants to prevent us from having control of our own deaths. They want us to leave that to fate (except in case of a capital crime)

(But see my earlier post)

Re:There is no right more personal

[uglyduckling]

"If it did happen, that's a shame, but just because that happens to a few people, that doesn't mean that assisted suicide should be banned outright."

Read that statement again. That's shocking. If even one person would be killed unnecessarily by the legalisation of assisted suicide, that would be absolute reason to ban it outright. Why?

Re:There is no right more personal

[Anonymous Coward]

I would oppose its legalisation on the basis that the protection of the vulnerable (i.e. those who wouldn't wish to die early but by failure of the process end up doing so) trumps the desire of those who with a clear mind and without coercion do wish to die early.

Compared with allowing individuals private operation of motor vehicles (responsible for ~ 40,000 deaths per year in the U.S. or with the number of civilian casualties resulting from say the war in Iraq, I suspect this loss of life would be insignificant. YMMV.

Re:There is no right more personal

[sjames]

There are any number of religions that do indeed believe that life is supernatural and magical and that it continues beyond the death of the body. Only some of them believe that euthanasia is a sin, others believe it's a form of ministry helping people on to the next phase of their existence. Don't lump it all in together.

Re:There is no right more personal

[pitje]

ah yes, biased reviews from one side of the debate

that'll show them!

Re:There is no right more personal

[katyngate]

One life versus the suffering of thousands who can't die earlier.

Re:There is no right more personal

[katyngate]

I say my freedom (in the sense of doing what I want with my body and life) trumps the life of a person who will be pressured into suicide. Such reasoning (that some people will fall prey to something (like drugs)) is very dangerous to personal liberty.

Re:There is no right more personal

[canadian_right]

Oregon has legal euthanasia. To the best of my knowledge the main controls are:

• Must have a terminal illness, less than a handful of months to live
• Must be of sound mind
• Must be in intolerable pain
• Must have three doctors signatures saying you meet all the requirements

So this prevents many of the abuses you brought up. I agree that you must guard against abuse, but I think that people should have the choice to end their lives when they stop being worth living, and there is nothing that can be done to fix it. I would not agree with helping someone who is depressed to commit suicide, for example, but would support it for someone with terminal cancer who is in great pain.

Re:There is no right more personal

[Killjoy_NL]

Yeah mostly the second reason.

Personally I have never read anything about people getting forced euthanasia and personally I am happy that I have the choice of euthanasia if I should ever be in a situation that is so bleak that there is no way out, like a terminal illness.

Disclaimer: I am dutch.

Re:There is no right more personal

[cyberchondriac]

Government, and religion. This is slashdot, where we blame religion for everything, but this time that is where the blame belongs. There's a lot of superstitious thought around - people who think human life is something magical and supernatural, which must be sustained by any means until the very last moment.

Very true -and rather ironic, considering most major religions adherents (Xtianity and Islam, at any rate) claim to believe in a wonderful afterlife, and often treat physical reality like it's some kind of toilet where everyone should suffer and practice loads of self-denial; then you get rewarded at the end. They want everyone to endure this as long as possible. Then there's the whole Catholic anti-suicide thing that automatically lands you in purgatory. Nice. It's tantamount to sado-masochism.
If we can't even own our own lives, then that would make us, essentially, slaves of the worst, most pathetic and helpless kind, and I'm not about to drop and worship what amounts to a sadistic slave-master god. People suffer enough already.

Re:There is no right more personal

[SuricouRaven]

Sometimes add 'must move to another hospital first.' Many hospitals just refuse to permit their doctors to sign the paperwork under any circumstances.

Re:There is no right more personal

[formfeed]

Government, and religion. This is slashdot, where we blame religion for everything, but this time that is where the blame belongs.

I agree to a large extent: Within Christianity suicide for any reason is wrong. This religious conviction is pushed on others. Even in a wider Western culture this conviction isn't held. In Greek philosophy the autonomy of the individual is more important, some allow suicide in case of terminal illness, some regard suicide as a way to maintain personal autonomy when forced into unethical behavior.

But I think Christianity has a point with their slippery-slope argument: There could be a dangerous move from "acceptable" to "expected". For example drug tests at companies are completely voluntary. You of course get fired if you refuse. And in some states you don't get unemployment benefits if that's the reason for getting fired. But as I said, the test is completely "voluntary".
Now lets say grandma has some quite expensive terminal illness, no pain and with treatment she could live another 10 years. She quite enjoys the grandkids. The insurance company says it's incurable, not covered, but it's her decision after all. She can now have a voluntary suicide or make sure her kids lose the house.

Yes there is a way out. But without universal health care, and in a society were money trumps people, I'd rather have a patient's will and a doctor who helps in the grey-zone with some pain killers than open that can of worms and end up with even less autonomy than now.

Re:There is no right more personal

[SuricouRaven]

I find it amusing that the 9/11 attack killed slightly more people than died in one month of traffic fatalities in the US* - but you don't see anywhere near as much fuss being made over the 9/11 attack the US suffers every month on the roads.

*It'd be slightly less these days - more cars, more deaths. When it comes to death, people have no sense of proportion.

Re:There is no right more personal

[SuricouRaven]

Purgatory? No, it's a deadly sin. Straight to Hell.

There is one possible loophole. In theory, a deadly sin can be confessed like any other - but it's obviously impossible in suicide. Almost. If you used some form of slow-acting suicide like a drug overdose, then you could confess the sin before it takes effect. The tricky part is getting genuine repentance. Some use of drugs may be required to provide a temporary mood lift or pain reduction to make sure you genuinely regret the suicide. It'd be tricky, depending on predicting mood changes and timeing of drugs, but it might be doable.

On a more practical side, those catholic things do matter - they run quite a few hospitals, and those hospitals are required to follow the church teachings. That means if you're in a Catholic hospital, even in a state that permits assisted suicide, you arn't getting it. They just won't sign the paperwork, though they'll transfer you to a hospital that will.

Re:There is no right more personal

[SuricouRaven]

Schiavo was a special case - it went Political. It was in the best interests of a few politicians to milk her for every vote she was worth. End-of-life issues are a great thing for that - they allow for a tremendous amount of grandstanding, and yet will only actually directly effect a vanishingly tiny number of people.

Re:There is no right more personal

[Idarubicin]

...there is a world of difference between deliberately causing death, and allowing death by not treating...

Oh, legally, sure. Practically, however, it's a matter of dumb chance. Someone who wishes to die (and makes that as a clear, deliberated, rational, cool-headed choice) has to wait to 'luck in' to an incidental ailment that can be neglected to the point of lethality. The terminal cancer patient with pneumonia gets to choose whether or not to commit suicide by refusal of IV antibiotic treatment. An otherwise identical patient with terminal cancer but no pneumonia doesn't get that choice.

If you accept that there is the potential for abuse by coercing individuals into legal assisted suicide (were such an option available), you also have to accept that there is the potential for abuse involving coercion of individuals into accepting (potentially) therapeutic interventions that they don't actually want. For physicians, there is much more incentive to enroll terminally-ill patients in advanced clinical trials than there is to coerce them into suicide.

Re:There is no right more personal

[shutdown -p now]

even if I were to accept that ideally people should have a right to choose when they die, I would oppose its legalisation on the basis that the protection of the vulnerable (i.e. those who wouldn't wish to die early but by failure of the process end up doing so) trumps the desire of those who with a clear mind and without coercion do wish to die early.

But the existing legislation does not "protect the vulnerable" - if they are pressed into suicide, it's going to happen anyway; it will just be that much more messy and painful due to methods involved.

Re:There is no right more personal

[St.Creed]

When querying for anti-euthanasia cards you will find exactly ONE hit in the Dutch language, from someone who asks if you can get one, on a forum. That's it. All other articles mentioning this stem from a publication on a catholic website. Not a Dutch one either. It's extreme rightwing scaremongering, using the fact that most people can't read Dutch to spread FUD about the issue.

Re:There is no right more personal

[St.Creed]

First, your facts.

- You claim 4000 patients a year are euthanized. That's not true: the peak year was in 2009, with 2500 cases. It rises by about 200 a year, mostly in line with the rise of the age in the population as a whole. This is still WAY down from 1995 when the number was around 3600. Better palliative care and pain treatments have reduced the need for euthanasia.

- Every year more than 10000 people request euthanasia. Two thirds of those applications are denied outright. The others are granted but not everyone then uses the opportunity. Some people die before they get euthanasia, others reconsider.

- A large part of what you quote is outright untrue. It is a clear warning sign that most of the articles you link don't provide citations.

- The article in the Weekly Standard is written by a fellow of the Discovery Institute, best known for its promotion of "Intelligent Design" creationism.

All in all, your view is biased, based on hyperbole, and is in need of re-evaluation.

Re:There is no right more personal

[MRe_nl]

Excuse moi for the late reply, but slashdot started giving me "guru meditation error messages" after my reply to your post yesterday.

"in the Netherlands where they've dismantled the bulk of their palliative care system"
That is simply not true. The amount and level of palliative care in the Netherlands is in the top 1% internationally.
Mainly a combination of wealth and socialist ideals.
Any recent cuts are in line with cuts on all fronts of the welfare state, and the privatization of healthcare.

"old people are afraid to go to the doctor"
Where do you get this information?
Which old people? And why are they afraid?
That the doctor might kill them, without their consent? Don't be ridiculous.
That is the opposite of what 99.99% of doctors are about.

"carry cards saying "Please don't euthanize me"
You will not be euthanized without YOUR OWN EXPLICIT WRITTEN permission AND consultations with at least two doctors, so such a card, if it exists at all, would be completely without purpose. You or your sources might be confused with the rather common "please don't reanimate me if I'm fubar"-card. Many Dutch people carry this card to avoid being kept alive like a vegetable by some machines if they get run over by a train for instance.

"their socialized medicine"
Which has in fact been privatised for almost ten years now.
Now less comprehensive, more exclusive and more expensive. Management is making more, so some profit.

I think that healthcare and a profit-driven structure are mutually exclusive.
And I definitely think that if I wish to end my life that's nobody business but my own, and that if I should request assistance, those that help me should not be punished for doing so.
It's my life, I am a free human, I owe allegiance to no lord or law but my own.

Re:There is no right more personal

[CarbonShell]

My body, my life, my choice!

Being a Buddhist I know what when my life is over, *I* will be forever gone. No heaven, no hell and I won't be smiling down at anyone. Sorry, no front row seats for me.
And while I do not look forward to that day, I accept it and cherish this life and hope to bring joy to others as well.
But when my time has come, they can take me apart and use every part of me as they (doctors) see fit.
I will no longer need this shell and happily donate it to (hopefully) allow others to live longer and possibly enjoy some of the highlights life can offer.

I honestly find it contradictory when those that claim to be 'pro life' only do so when it suits their needs. If you have the misfortune of being born in poverty and/or with some horrible health problems, well then that is somehow your own fault.
Guess when some God helps people, it is only for sporting events or lotteries ...

Re:There is no right more personal

[drinkypoo]

Even a crippled, paralysed, motor neuron disease riddled man can still contribute immensly to the sum of human knowledge.

Nobody is arguing that. What we are arguing is whether humanity has the right to force him to contribute against his will.

Re:There is no right more personal

[drinkypoo]

"If it did happen, that's a shame, but just because that happens to a few people, that doesn't mean that assisted suicide should be banned outright."

Read that statement again. That's shocking. If even one person would be killed unnecessarily by the legalisation of assisted suicide, that would be absolute reason to ban it outright. Why?

Slippery slope, anyone? If there's ever been a more obvious case of it on slashdot, I haven't seen it, and I've been here for quite some time.

euthanasia vs the death penalty

[MrKaos]

The cruel irony about this debate is that people who want to (or need to) die are sentenced to an indeterminate amount of suffering before they actually die and people convicted to death have their lives taken for a crime they should spend the rest of their natural lives contemplating in a steel and concrete cell.

The way the most despised are treated says a lot about a society, but the way a society treats it's least despised says a lot more.

Re:euthanasia vs the death penalty

[uglyduckling]

What's sad (but I don't think ironic) is that so many people frame this debate as a choice between suffering and death. The choice should be between suffering and not suffering. In other words, if so many people are suffering to such an extent, rather than debating assisted death, we should be finding out why the care needs of a large number of people are not being met, and make the changes to health and social care that are needed. Only when we have done everything to ensure suffering-free life, should we even begin to discuss death as an alternative.

Re:euthanasia vs the death penalty

[athmanb]

In the cases serviced by assisted suicide, "not suffering" is not an option. Even if given painkillers barely below the lethal dose, terminal stage cancer is still painful. This is a medical issue that is currently not solvable. Maybe we'll find a treatment for cancer in a few decades, but until then the only available choice is:
- suffering, then death
- death

Re:euthanasia vs the death penalty

[uglyduckling]

That's untrue, and it's this sort of misinformation that makes proper debate on this issue difficult. The role of palliative care is to prevent pain (and other distressing symptoms) even to the point of hastening death. This is already legal in the majority of Western countries (as fair as I am aware), and physicians are allowed to give painkillers up to AND INCLUDING a potentially lethal dose if the patient is suffering. This is different to assisted suicide where the aim is to cause death, rather the aim is to relieve pain etc. even if it brings the possibility of hastening death (doctrine of double effect). No one should be suffering, period.

Re:euthanasia vs the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

But suffering is not just about pain. Alzheimer's patients get to feel their own minds slipping away. My Grandmother had it and was incredibly distressed. At the end she didn't know where she was, who the people around her were (even her own family) and couldn't properly control her bodily functions. She got other old-age associated illnesses and was frightened as she didn't understand why she was in pain. It is a horrible way to live. I know that during the early stages of the disease, while she still had her own mind, she would have signed up for some sort of assisted suicide had it been available. And we as her family would have understood.

The point I'm trying to make here is that sometimes you can't stop suffering unless you take action to cause death.

Re:euthanasia vs the death penalty

[canadian_right]

No, it is true. In the final stages of cancer the pain is so overwhelming that if you are conscious you are in pain, not matter what drugs are given to you. Horrible, life destroying pain with no end.You would have to administer a general anaesthesia to stop the pain, but then the person isn't living any ways.

I sincerely hope you never learn the truth of this first hand, or due to a family member suffering so.

Administering enough analgesics to kill the patient is euthanasia.

Re:euthanasia vs the death penalty

[Qzukk]

Strap on a bomb and find out how quick the government will give you all the help you need.

Re:euthanasia vs the death penalty

[baKanale]

It also seems like there is a decent sized overlap between those who support capital punishment and those who condemn euthanasia. I've frequently heard the claim from that crowd that voluntary euthanasia leads down a "slippery slope" to involuntary euthanasia and a "culture of death". If that's the case, then what does letting the government execute people lead to?

Re:euthanasia vs the death penalty

[janimal]

Mod parent up.

As I found out in my aunt's case of terminal cancer, a time comes, when the drugs administered are in doses that could kill (via liver failure, for example). The doses are then not increased, or alternate lighter drugs are given. In either case, the patient suffers extreme pain. The idea that modern medicine ensures no pain is a myth.

Re:News For Nerds

[syousef]

C'mon timothy, this is pathetic. What the fuck does Dr. Jack Kevorkian dying have to do with news for nerds? I don't recall any other article here about him or even the topic of assisted suicide on this site at all.

Stick to your lane please. This is not stuff that matters.

Hasn't being a nerd ever made you suicidal? ;-)

I really shouldn't joke. Way too important a topic. Many, many facets to consider here.

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerds are immune to death? No? Then fuck off you twit.

Re:News For Nerds

[hansraj]

Umm, actually some of those things are classified under YRO. Things that are not just don't fall into the scope of "news for nerds". You wouldn't debate OP if slashdot's tagline were "News for the color blind" just because color blind people care about their freedom too, would you?

You can take this machine away...

[operator_error]

...when you can pry it away from my cold, dead fingers. Except darn it, my carpal tunnel is killing me too. Aaargghgghhh

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[dattaway]

You should have seen the early slashdot articles. And the comments too...

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever thought, that just maybe, death runs Linux? :-)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Not yet, but we are working on it.

Dr. K Was No Murderer

[makemoneyonlinenow]

I am kind of sad to see the good Dr. pass. He was not "a murderer" in my opinion. The man showed compassion for those that could not live a normal and functional life and did what they wanted him to do.

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[aztrailerpunk]

I appreciate the other news on slashdot. It's one of the last few places I can go to read comments that are not clearly based on a political agenda. I can read a discussion from an educated audience that is generally willing to converse intelligently and not just flame people that are the outliers on a school of thought.

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[Gaygirlie]

stuff that matters

Atleast the quoted part is indeed true in this case.

could be worse

[lemur3]

hey, pal... it could be a lot worse, there could be stories about WRESTLING.

Re:News For Nerds

[errandum]

Because the title wasn't clear enough for you not to click it.

Don't like this kind of news, don't read them :).

Re:News For Nerds

[zach_the_lizard]

I smell a new patent brewing...

A Half-Baked Project

[loox]

I always wondered why he could help so many people to die earlier than their time and could help nobody to die later instead. To be a paladin of rights, he just fought for half of the cause.

Re:A Half-Baked Project

[Stormthirst]

There are plenty of Doctors who do that already. How many Doctors do you know would champion euthanasia?

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[SirGarlon]

Slashdot has to run a politically charged story every day or two to feed the trolls and flamers. Helps keep up the ad revenue, or something.

Please Read a Book...

[ideonexus]

"God Bless You Doctor Kevorkian" is a reference to Kurt Vonnegut's book of the same title. In that book Vonnegut, an atheist, explains how at a meeting of the American Humanist Society, after Isaac Asimov's death, he started a speech there with "Isaac Asimov is in heaven now, God rest is soul." which got a huge laugh from the assembly of atheists.

So it's not an actual religious statement, but a semi-farcical one, acknowledging that we atheists do seem to be at a loss for words when it comes to comforting and consoling people over the recently departed. I try to focus on what a miracle it was that we get to experience the wonder of existence at all--statistically speaking. But I was at a complete loss for words when my friend's wife accidentally backed over their son playing in the driveway. What can an spiritual naturalist say to someone when confronted with that? Religion has it easy, they just say the child is in a better place. I don't know what we have... and until we have something, religion wins.

Kevorkian led a long life in service of a greater good. What do you propose we as empiricists, spiritual naturalists, rationalists (call us anything other than the unscientific word "atheist" that defines us in a religious context) say to honor the dead and comfort the living? I'm genuinely curious.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

+10 Informative, I didn't get the reference, I'll look into that.

I don't like the idea of defining myself as an Atheist either, as Poe would have put it: de nier ce qui est, et d'expliquer ce qui n'est pas. (to deny what it is, and explain what it's not). But it servers me better than any other term for a simple reason: It's immediately understood by anyone. "I'm an empiricist" doesn't have the same ring as "Fuck you, I'm an Atheist" when said to a jeovah's witness on a sunday morning. So, out of pragmatism I've gotten used to the term.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sorry for your loss, as a rationalist I can say, without a doubt, he is no longer suffering."

Re:Please Read a Book...

[vadim_t]

Kevorkian led a long life in service of a greater good. What do you propose we as empiricists, spiritual naturalists, rationalists (call us anything other than the unscientific word "atheist" that defines us in a religious context) say to honor the dead and comfort the living? I'm genuinely curious.

IMO, if you have something on hand for that situation, your words are empty. Things like "god bless" and "he's in a better place" are just like "gesundheit" for sneezing. Things that are automatically said because you're supposed to. And since you're supposed to and not doing any thinking, they don't mean anything.

I'd have some trouble figuring out what to say in that situation as well. What I would do is trying to figure out how I can help, and that's going to depend on who I'm dealing with. I don't think there's a formula for it.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[houghi]

I don't know what we have... and until we have something, religion wins.

I utterly and completely disagree. A religious person might say that it was in Gods hands or the person now is in Gods hands.

That does not take away the pain.

What we have is something all people have, regardless of religion. It is called compassion. The compassion is there for those who are left without a loved one.

What I say differs from how well I know the person, how well he knows me and the relation to the person who died as well as other things.

A good friend of mine lost his mom and I said "Well, shit happens." He later thanked me for not being one of those idiots who told him they were sorry and how they would be there for him. And I won;t repeat what he said about the religious people who told him she was with God now.

Do not misunderstand me, I do not say that to all people. I have said nothing and just gave a hug or even said "My condolences" and nothing more.

What is more important is not so much what you say, but that you mean it and that they understand they can lean on you when THEY need to.

That means that there is no one answer. Each person is different and what works for me won't work for you and the other way around. The advantage you as an atheist has is that you can say what YOU feel, not repeat what somebody else said.

That in itself will mean a LOT more to the person you talk to. And not only during sad moments, also during happy moments, like births or weddings.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[defaria]

What can an spiritual naturalist say to someone when confronted with that? Religion has it easy, they just say the child is in a better place. I don't know what we have... and until we have something, religion wins.

What we have is the truth. What they have is a lie.

Kevorkian led a long life in service of a greater good. What do you propose we as empiricists, spiritual naturalists, rationalists (call us anything other than the unscientific word "atheist" that defines us in a religious context) say to honor the dead and comfort the living? I'm genuinely curious.

What do you say to somebody who parked his car on a cliff, forgot to engage the emergency brake, left the car and it rolled of the cliff? You say that was a shame or that that sucks. You don't "honor" the car and yet you still want to comfort the person about his loss. I'm not saying the car is the same as somebody's life - indeed it's more of a shame, bad thing or whatever when a life is lost. What I'm saying is a loss is a loss so think of it that way.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats wrong with saying "I'm sorry for your loss" even if its unpractical to of saved their life, surely you would have some sorrow.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[rolfwind]

What can an spiritual naturalist say to someone when confronted with that?

You're making the mistake that specific words actually matter. Consolation is consolation.

And empty phrases are just that. Don't put to much stock into packaged "wisdom". If my loved one died, people yapping pointless shit to me would have little value. I know from my childhood. It's more them trying to make themselves feel better in an awkward situation than it is actually about consoling somebody.

I don't know what we have... and until we have something, religion wins.

What a load.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[canadian_right]

Religion wins when there is a tragedy?

I fail to see how a fairy tale would make a rational, adult, person feel better. Wouldn't a sincere statement of sympathy without reference to obviously untrue statements, like "they are in a better place" be a much more ethical way to act? The world is a neutral place. Bad things do happen. You do want to comfort people who are dealing with tragedy, but we shouldn't have to resort to fairy tales to deal with life's slings and arrows.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[InfiniteZero]

Great question.

Nerds tend to be idealists, and hold the ideal of logic and rationalism as the absolute and the supreme. I used to be the same way. This approach works perfectly in math science and engineering, but often fails miserably in social settings, because it does not consider what I call the "people factor", or the human condition.

In situations like that, it's not about logic -- it's not even about you. It's about emotion -- OTHER people's emotion. As such, even though I'm an atheist (an agnostic with an inclination towards atheism), I now have no problem saying "God rests his soul", if it's of any condolence to the family and friends of the deceased. I'm saying it from THEIR perspective, in the sense that, assuming there is a god, and a soul as THEY believe, then by all means, may God rests his soul.

Maybe days or weeks later, but it's not the place and time to discuss religion right there and then.

On a related note, a wiseman once told me, "It's not about what you say, but what people hear."

Re:Please Read a Book...

[InfiniteZero]

Clicked the wrong button. Meant to reply to parent.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[jfanning]

In Finnish you say "otan osa" which doesn't literally translate well to English. But it basically means I feel your loss, or I feel for you. Doesn't invoke any gods at all.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[vadim_t]

This "otan osa" is just as empty of meaning. There's a big difference between the "sorry" people automatically mumble without even looking when they bump into you in the underground, and a genuine apology.

Premade sentences like "I feel your loss" are IMO made more for the one who says them, than for the ones they're said to. They solve the uncomfortable tension that arises in difficult situations, and let the speaker relax and believe that they did their duty.

I think there's very little value to these things, whether they have or don't any religious connotations. The real value is in providing actual support.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[npsimons]

So it's not an actual religious statement, but a semi-farcical one, acknowledging that we atheists do seem to be at a loss for words when it comes to comforting and consoling people over the recently departed.

I'm an atheist who recently had to put a cat down. She had terminal cancer, and was basically a member of the family. Very loving, and we loved her. What it came down to was that she was suffering. She couldn't stand on her hind legs, had to be carried to the litter box. She wasn't eating or drinking, and even when she did, she couldn't keep it down, and even when she could, it hurt her to go to the bathroom. She seemed mostly content and happy (slept a lot the last few days), but it was obvious what had to be done. My wife is a christian, and even though we don't share beliefs on the afterlife, one thing we can agree upon is that our cat is no longer suffering.

As an atheist, I haven't seen any evidence of life after death. We only have so much time, so we better make the best of it. And we have to recognize when that time is no longer "quality" time. Heaven may not be real, but hell can exist here on earth; just ask any cancer patient.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[npsimons]

Things like "god bless" and "he's in a better place" are just like "gesundheit" for sneezing.

No, they're not the same thing; gesundheit is used to wish good health. That's why, as an atheist, I feel comfortable saying it instead of "bless you". It may be pointless, but it's also considered rude not to respond to someone sneezing.

As for non-believer responses to someone dying, you can with some certainty say that the person will not suffer anymore.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[vadim_t]

No, they're not the same thing; gesundheit is used to wish good health. That's why, as an atheist, I feel comfortable saying it instead of "bless you". It may be pointless, but it's also considered rude not to respond to someone sneezing.

Except, my post was about that they're all pointless, whether religious or not. I just don't consider the non-religious sayings to have much value and to be something I need to be concerned about.

As for non-believer responses to someone dying, you can with some certainty say that the person will not suffer anymore.

Yes, but the situation here is "my friend's wife accidentally backed over their son playing in the driveway". Supposing that he led a quite happy life until that point, that would be rather inappropiate.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[jfanning]

That is entirely true, but the question was what to say in such situations (running over a child) that don't invoke any deities. You can just say like the cops in "Law and Order", "I'm sorry for your loss".

For the rational atheists among us in such situations, you may as well say, "shit happens".

Re:Please Read a Book...

[gfreeman]

Tolerance is such a dirty word, don't you think?

You want to believe in God? Yeah, I'll tolerate that. I give you permission to believe.

Try understanding on both sides, and then see where that gets us. A lot farther, I bet, than tolerance ever has.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[sjames]

Personally, I have little problem with that, but since he is at the "Fuck You, I'm an Atheist" stage, tolerance is a reasonable baby step.

Re:Please Read a Book...

[slackbheep]

I'm assuming your parents are quite displeased to have you speaking to your elders so rudely, Aren't you worried they'll ground you and take away your X-Box?

Re:Please Read a Book...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Really? Dude, you have a 7 digits UID. You are the child here.

Lurk moar.

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[fermion]

So slashdot readers are really loveless loser who just sit in the basement until they whither away. The reality is that my biggest fear is that the government with megalomaniacal religious wannabes forcing me to live way past my natural life, turning me into a zombie drug addict, but of course most geeks are going to keel over at fourth from a cheetos overdose.

in reality this concerns geeks because most geeks are rational and do not support making people suffer simply so that other people may extend their power and wealth. I suspect that most geeks with children would not support extended a life in which simple pleasures like reading and video games and coding are impossibilities simply because religious figures must force another to live in intolerable pain so they can continue to fleet the masses out of hard earned currency. And i suspect that most would rather have money spent supporting healthy babies rather than drug addicted seniors.

And before people say I hate religion, it is not true. I simply see no justification for the existence of charlatans that use faith of any color to enslave the minds and bodies of willing or unwilling subjects. There is nothing inherently wrong with faith, simply the people who abuse it and to lesser extent the weak looking for simple solutions.

Re:News For Nerds

[Hazel Bergeron]

Keep up. I linked you to what many have considered is a merciful technological solution to suffering.

Maybe your religion wants to "prevent death" in a terminally ill cripple. Not all of us are that simplistic.

Re:News For Nerds

[Rob the Bold]

What does death have to do with "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters"?

I have some potentially alarming news for you . . .

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[discord5]

I appreciate the other news on slashdot.

I can understand some of the political debate here, especially if it has an impact on technology or science, and such things as world shaking events (like the Fukushima earthquake, no pun intended) because that's actual news that has a global impact. Hell, the nuclear debate sprung up, and there are global economical repercussions that have somewhat affected our profession. So it's not like I'm arguing for a complete lack of "other" news.

It's one of the last few places I can go to read comments that are not clearly based on a political agenda

In an article about a man who assisted in suicide you're going to have three camps: people for, people against, with a hand full of people leaning towards a shade of gray in a black and white discussion. This discussion has been had over and over, and for many countries (including my own) it's one of those touchy debates that every politician gets upset about, but most people regard with "common sense". Here, the old policy for euthanasia (which is a case of assisted suicide for the most part) was with a really sick and dying person to give them a shot of morphine (or other a suitable dose of another painkiller) to "ease the pain" if the family or patient requested it and not to ask any questions. If the doctor refused, another doctor was asked. Then politics got involved and now there's forms, waivers, hospitals and/or doctors can refuse (thus ending the option to go to another doctor in the same hospital), the family can refuse the patients wish, and it can even go to court dragging out for months while the patient is probably going to die in pain before the lawyers finish writing the invoice.

The debate is in general tiresome in my opinion since it always boils down to a set of values people have, and there really is no right or wrong. You could debate that it's murder, and you'd be right technically, but is this kind of murder wrong? And so we give it another name : euthanasia, assisted suicide, giving the patient something for the pain ... I think that despite the current legislation for euthanasia in my country the situation has devolved for the worst. Due to the legal mess that the whole legislation has created doctors and patients aren't sure any more if they are allowed to perform/request the option, and at any time third parties can intervene for whatever reason they can think of. Compare this to a sick person saying his goodbyes and then asking "Relieve me from this pain, I've only got 2 weeks of prolonged suffering ahead of me at this point". Completely outlawing the practice would be dumb in my opinion since it's not in our nature to let people suffer needlessly, especially if we care about them, so the practice will be a lot more crude.

The same thing goes for the abortion debate. It's various points of view that are as different as black and white, and if it's a right or wrong point of view depends on whatever your own opinion on the matter is. There is no middle ground in these kinds of debate because they're ethical issues, and thus we get religion, politics and everything possible involved. However, all of this has no scientific or technological impact. We're not going to invent futurama-style suicide booths any time soon, nor does any side of the debate want these kinds of devices (aside from perhaps a few misguided "wouldn't it be cool" geeks). We're also not going to be doing much scientific research into the "other side", the soul or whatever your local flavour of religion calls it for obvious reasons.

I can read a discussion from an educated audience that is generally willing to converse intelligently and not just flame people that are the outliers on a school of thought.

There's an educated audience alright, but only a few of them are willing to converse intelligently. The first reply I got to my previous message was one telling me to fuck off. I'd be happy to oblige, unfortunately the author gave no good reason to do so, so I'll continue posting with an air of sarcasm until he does.

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[RsG]

can go to read comments that are not clearly based on a political agenda

(Emphasis mine).

I read that sentence to mean it's possible to find non-political discourse on slashdot, not that all discussions are non-political. Granted, there are still idiots who insist on dragging their own soapboxes into every single discussion regardless of relevance, but they haven't taken over yet.

Plus, if there were a group mentality you describe, there wouldn't be flame wars between rival ideologies on those very subjects you bring up. Whereas there are many such flame wars. You unwittingly draw attention to this fact by referring to the contradiction in a group mentality that dislikes both corporations and government; some posters are anti-government, some are anti-corporate and some are both or neither (not a group consensus in other words).

Re:News For Nerds

[cold fjord]

Computer assisted suicide is still suicide.

Nobody would refer to Dr. Kervorkian as simplistic, although some other adjectives seem to apply.

Kervorkian: The Rube Goldberg of Death

... “What is to guarantee that the doctors will make the correct ethical choices in running the death clinics?” Kevorkian responded angrily, “I can keep this controlled while I’m alive, but after I die you’ll get corruptible doctors running them. But that doesn’t scare me, that should scare society. That’s society’s problem.”

Dr. Kevorkian’s views on euthanasia do not stop at “planned death,” but build to an ultimate conclusion. This is probably best expressed in the articles he has written over the years for the professional journal, Medicine and Law. In 1986 he wrote on human experimentation:

The so-called Nuremberg Code and all its derivatives completely ignore the extraordinary opportunities for terminal experimentation on humans facing imminent and inevitable death. . . . Intense emotionalism engendered by the concentration camp atrocities of World War II has unfairly stigmatized this honorable concept and cloaked it in silence. . . .

. . . Now that the benumbed sense of objective appraisal manifested by the Nuremberg judges has begun to wear off, at last it is conceded that they were wrong in concluding that nothing of value resulted from the illegal experiments. . . . The data are all the more valuable because similar human experiments can never again be done. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that a few of the medical criminals did the right thing (extraction of positive gain from inevitably total loss otherwise beyond their influence) but in the wrong way (without concern over consent or anesthesia) and in the wrong setting (created by the evil “laws” of a diabolical dictator.)[1]

Kevorkian’s research into human experimentation began while he was in the residency program at the University of Michigan, and eventually led to his removal from the program.

“While I was in my residency I was researching the idea of condemned men being allowed to submit to anesthesia rather than execution. While under anesthesia we could do experiments from which they wouldn’t recover, and then remove their organs. Now if you needed a liver or a heart, would you like to see a young healthy man or woman fried in the electric chair? No! But that Dark Age school told me I would have to drop the project I was working on or leave. So I left, and spent my last two years of residency at Pontiac.” While an associate pathologist at Pontiac General Hospital Kevorkian ran into more trouble. As part of an experiment he transfused cadaver blood directly into several patients. Kevorkian’s actions shocked the U.S. medical community, but no legal action was taken against him. ...

In a 1988 Medicine and Law article Kevorkian builds on his previous ideas of human experimentation by combining it with his theories on planned death. In his article, “The Last Fearsome Taboo: Medical Aspects of Planned Death,” Kevorkian explains how with the experimentation you move from “euthanasia” or “good death” to an area called “eutatosthanasia” or “best death.”

Planned death is the purposeful ending of human life by direct human action. The concept is broader than euthanasia or “mercy killing,” which are the ways it is usually interpreted. It includes capital punishment, both involuntary and voluntary; obligatory suicide mandated by rigid theistic or philosophical principles; quasi-optional suicide for the relief of suffering resulting from illness, disability, or old age; strictly optional suicide for reasons not known to others; justifiable infantic

Many people commit suicide without Dr. Jack

[Dragon Bait]

I've known too many people who have committed suicide. Usually elderly (over 80), usually in great pain (terminal cancer or back injuries), usually with a gun, and usually they make a great mess of things. Most live between an hour and an hour and a half after pulling the trigger, squirming in pain with blood and brains splattered on the wall for their relatives to clean up.

The world needs Dr. Jack.

An American Original

[MarkvW]

Only in the USA.

By his own hand? Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically he died from a pulmonary embolism. A blood clot in his leg came loose and migrated to his lungs.

So he didn't die by his own hand, he died by his own leg.

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[Khashishi]

I read Slashdot for politics. If you don't like it, why don't you hide the politics articles in your options. Frankly, I think geeks are generally more rational than the common folk, and I value their opinions.

Re:He was a murderer

[Khashishi]

He was a gun maker. He never pulled the trigger.

human rights

[Khashishi]

To me, the debate on suicide is not about suffering, but about human rights. If we do not own our own physical bodies, what do we own at all? There is nothing more unequivocally yours than you. For a state to take control of your own body away from you is capital theft, akin to slavery.

Re:human rights

[Veggiesama]

A state also has the duty to safeguard and protect its citizens from harm. So while those threats usually seem to come from terrorism and environmental catastrophe, the ravages of severe depression can be just as formidable a foe.

Now, of course, like Kevorkian I believe if you can demonstrate a severely reduced quality-of-life (ex. a terminal, incurable illness wracked with immense pain), then you're not just depressed--you're suffering needlessly. Sometimes you lack so much control over your own suffering that only by choosing the method and time of your own death can you once again regain some control and dignity over your situation.

Still, taking one's own life should never be a decision made hastily. I believe the state has a responsibility to its citizens in this case, especially to those among us who lack the clarity of mind to make such a dire decision. Taking your life isn't just a victimless crime: it takes a serious psychological toll on your family, your friends, and your community. So, in my mind, it's reasonable for the state to get involved at some level.

Re:It sure is news for nerds here

[Ironchew]

Ahh, the eternal "is this really news for nerds?" troll.
This is a philosophical debate in society; nerds are welcome. What you seem to want is "news for consumers".

Re:He was a murderer

[Killjoy_NL]

VERY nice comparison :)

Re:This man was a HERO.

[Killjoy_NL]

The world needs more people who will champion just causes, I believe this is one of them.
I am lucky enough to live in a country where there are problems, but none bad enough that it needs such a champion (yet).

His final score was:

[DG]

1 goal, 130 assists.

What, too soon?

DG

Get over yourself. Seriously

[DG]

I've been here since the start.

This story would ABSOLUTELY have been posted on "Old Slashdot".

It's a NEWS site. While there is a definate Internet / IT geek focus, that which is NEWS has always been fair game, even when it was slightly out of scope for a pure tech site.

Goodbye, AC. We won't miss you.

DG

I'm ever so disgusted at Slashdot community

[paxcoder]

You all seem so single minded, and about such a controversial issue; There's something wrong here, you can't all think that it is ethical to end another human's life just because a person is in such a psychological state that he/she desires it. Your beloved Hawkins is in a wheel chair. If he gets depressed or suicidal, are you going to do the "right thing" and load the gun and assemble the trigger for him? That's a rhetorical question you quasi-intellectual lacking in morality.

God is not dead. You've just replaced Him with the void in your lives. And now that is all you can give to your "fellow" man.
There's no peace for angels of death.